8 Newfound Alien Worlds Could Potentially Support Life

[Dryson]

Astronomers have discovered eight new exoplanets that may be capable of supporting life as we know it, including what they say are the two most Earthlike alien worlds yet found.

http://www.space.com/28185-rocky-alien-planets-habitable-zone.html

Kepler 438b would probably be hot year around like it is in the desert. Kepler 442b would probably be like Florida during the Wintertime. Both habitable conditions for life.

What temperature range do you think each planet would support?

 

[DarthTom]

I saw that story. It's very cool. I wonder why they don't sell the naming rights to these plants to generate more $$ to launch new telescopes. They should sell the naming rights for each, "earth like planet," at $1 million/planet. At over 1,000 so far, that give NASA an extra $1 billion to play with.

I'm certain a lot of rich people would eagerly pay $1 million to have their name affixed to a planet for time immemorial.

 

[B.J.]

^ NASA has no authority over the naming of things, that's the domain of the IAU. That said, the IAU did start a contest last year to start naming some of these planets (see story here).

On topic, there's not enough information yet to make any assumptions about what kinds of temperatures would exist on the planet. Atmospheric makeup, magnetic field, and many other factors would affect that. Not to mention the fact that even on our own planet, it's far from a homogenous climate (this ain't Star Wars).

 

[JES]

If Kepler 442b is anything like it is outside now, it would probably be nice and comfortable. It is rather nice and cool outside right now.

Anyone remember Abydos from Stargate? That would probably be how Kepler 438b would be, if it were a planetwide desert. Not very comfortable for us, and probably not very diverse in life either, but with life specialized to live there. A Planet Sahara.

Of course, we still don't know if they are inhabited at all yet.

 

[Silvercrest]

My understanding is that you need a lot of free water to sustain an oxygen atmosphere. A literal planetwide desert wouldn't be able to sustain one. Therefore it wouldn't be able to sustain life, period.

Anyone got any verification on that (either way)?

 

[Dryson]

My understanding is that you need a lot of free water to sustain an oxygen atmosphere. A literal planetwide desert wouldn't be able to sustain one. Therefore it wouldn't be able to sustain life, period.

Anyone got any verification on that (either way)?

That's the reason why NASA tries to look for planets that are rocky like Earth. The more rocky the terrain means that planet wide wind patterns won't reduce the planets surface to a barren waste land.

With rocky planets any strikes from comets or sizeable ice chunk asteroids would allow the ice to either thaw and remain to form into lakes, rivers and oceans or be frozen and remain instead of being eroded.

The planet having a very active volcano system like Earths would also be necessary so that plate tectonics would occur so that like a recycling center planetary matter is recycled into the core and then back out through the planets volcanos.

 

[Metryq]

With rocky planets any strikes from comets or sizeable ice chunk asteroids would allow the ice to either thaw and remain to form into lakes, rivers and oceans or be frozen and remain instead of being eroded.

Except that comets are not icy, dirty snowballs that "seeded Earth's oceans." The evidence is mounting against that fantasy, and repeating it with every press release won't make it true—here, or for other planets.

 

[Maurice]

That's the reason why NASA tries to look for planets that are rocky like Earth. The more rocky the terrain means that planet wide wind patterns won't reduce the planets surface to a barren waste land.

Umm, what? If a planet isn't rocky it's likely a gas giant and probably doesn't have "surface" in an Earthlike sense at all. Neither Mars nor Venus required planet wide wind patterns to make them barren wastelands. You're conflating a bunch of things and drawing an incorrect conclusion.

Astronomers look for rocky planets because gas giants are unlikely candidates to be habitable in the way that we define that, so where else you gonna look?

 

[Dryson]

That's the reason why NASA tries to look for planets that are rocky like Earth. The more rocky the terrain means that planet wide wind patterns won't reduce the planets surface to a barren waste land.

Umm, what? If a planet isn't rocky it's likely a gas giant and probably doesn't have "surface" in an Earthlike sense at all. Neither Mars nor Venus required planet wide wind patterns to make them barren wastelands. You're conflating a bunch of things and drawing an incorrect conclusion.

Astronomers look for rocky planets because gas giants are unlikely candidates to be habitable in the way that we define that, so where else you gonna look?

Planets that have rocky terrains break up the wind patterns and actually create a wind pattern that would help life begin on a planet.

The key necessity to life is the ability to work. Work for a tree involves having strong roots to keep it in place in the soil. If the wind patterns are the same all of the time and never change the soil for the tree is eroded and carried away thus never allowing the tree to fully take root and keep the soil in place so that the natural ecological evolution of the planet can place.

The grows taking in carbon dioxide that produces oxygen as a bi-product. The tree also provides shelter for smaller insects from larger insects as well. The insects defecate adding nutrients to the soil that other insects and microbial thrive on. The tree gets old, dies and topples over and begins the process of decay which then provides more shelter and hunting grounds for insects as well as nutrients for the insects and microbial that then defecate providing nutrients for other life. This entire process would not be possible if the entire planet was void of mountain ranges to break up the wind patterns so that the tree could take a rest and build more strength.

Think of it this way. A body builder (the tree) works out constantly (the force of wind applied against it) which also effects the soil composition around the tree. Without the body builder stopping to let the cells in the body repair itself and build mass the body builder like the tree would die of exhaustion because the wind or the weights the body builder was using consumed all of the available nutrients which the tree needed to grow.

 

[Maurice]

You're dodging the fact that your stated premise is false: that "NASA tries to look for planets that are rocky like Earth. The more rocky the terrain means that planet wide wind patterns won't reduce the planets surface to a barren waste land." That's not why they look for rocky planets, so just admit you were incorrect.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

That's the reason why NASA tries to look for planets that are rocky like Earth. The more rocky the terrain means that planet wide wind patterns won't reduce the planets surface to a barren waste land.

Umm, what? If a planet isn't rocky it's likely a gas giant and probably doesn't have "surface" in an Earthlike sense at all. Neither Mars nor Venus required planet wide wind patterns to make them barren wastelands. You're conflating a bunch of things and drawing an incorrect conclusion.

Astronomers look for rocky planets because gas giants are unlikely candidates to be habitable in the way that we define that, so where else you gonna look?

Planets that have rocky terrains break up the wind patterns and actually create a wind pattern that would help life begin on a planet.

The key necessity to life is the ability to work. Work for a tree involves having strong roots to keep it in place in the soil. If the wind patterns are the same all of the time and never change the soil for the tree is eroded and carried away thus never allowing the tree to fully take root and keep the soil in place so that the natural ecological evolution of the planet can place.

The grows taking in carbon dioxide that produces oxygen as a bi-product. The tree also provides shelter for smaller insects from larger insects as well. The insects defecate adding nutrients to the soil that other insects and microbial thrive on. The tree gets old, dies and topples over and begins the process of decay which then provides more shelter and hunting grounds for insects as well as nutrients for the insects and microbial that then defecate providing nutrients for other life. This entire process would not be possible if the entire planet was void of mountain ranges to break up the wind patterns so that the tree could take a rest and build more strength.

Think of it this way. A body builder (the tree) works out constantly (the force of wind applied against it) which also effects the soil composition around the tree. Without the body builder stopping to let the cells in the body repair itself and build mass the body builder like the tree would die of exhaustion because the wind or the weights the body builder was using consumed all of the available nutrients which the tree needed to grow.

Dryson, even a planet that was covered completely by desert would be considered a rocky planet. You know this, right? The weather of a given planet is a separate conversation.

 

[Dryson]

The more rocky terrain of planet means that there is more activity at the core of the planet. More activity at the core of a planet means more volcanic activity including plate tectonics.

Why do we hardly ever see Earthquakes in the Middle East are where there are regions of great deserts on Earth?

Having rocky planetary surfaces means that the environment is constantly flowing like a swiftly running river brook that creates work for the species contained within the brook itself that then in turns creates a feeding system where species of life then in turn feed on other species to have the necessary energy to perform their work.

A rocky mountainous planet would in fact confirm that the planet has an active enough core to create an active environment of tectonic plate movement that similar to the brook would keep the environment fresh and sustaining compared to a near dead planetary core such as Mars that is not active enough to create plate movement to create a fast rolling brook but only a subtle stagnant pond.

What Is A Comet Made Of

-http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?id=11219

Comets are basically dusty snowballs which orbit the Sun. They are made of ices, such as water, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane, mixed with dust.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/178-What-is-a-comet-

Then how did water come to be on the planet Earth Mr. Churchill? Some fantasy endeavor involving large chunks of frozen water formed after the Big Bang impacting with the Earth?

The water would have boiled off and into space during the early formation of Earth but later as the Earth's surface cooled impacts from large icy water laden chunks of frozen water would have helped the surface of Earth to harden where the water remained and accumulated while the interior of the planet was allowed to remain volcanically fluid.

What happens when lava comes into contact with water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8p7yxv5JYs

So yes having large rocky mountainous regions on a planet would say that the planet is possibly able to sustain life because in order for the planet to have large mountainous regions the planet would need to be volcanically active where the interaction with water would continue to build up and break down new continents and islands.

 

[Dryson]

I was looking through my Ancient Agent book and came across a picture of the Nile region in Egypt. The Nile region is very fertile on either side of the Nile for a few miles but after that there is nothing but desert.

The Nile region supports life yet the surrounding region does not. By supporting life I mean vegetation.

It could therefore be possible that planets rich with Nile region water ways could exist where the rest of the planet was arid and barren desert.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Nile_composite_NASA.jpg

A region like the Nile could support upwards of maybe 50 million people on a planet where similar Nile regions are the only source of vegetation.

 

[sojourner]

Please, read more science books. Post less non-science (sense).

 

[Silvercrest]

Dryson-- it sounds like you're claiming rocky terrain is necessary for life. That wouldn't be true if all the life was aquatic and there was none on land. We know of one planet where historically that's happened.